Corporate Law : The CCI held that dominance alone is insufficient to establish a violation under Section 4. The key takeaway is that actual or pot...
Corporate Law : This case examines whether borrowing costs should be capitalised using full-year borrowings or only those during the eligible peri...
Corporate Law : The Court’s 2025 ruling upheld CCI’s power to impose structural and personal penalties without a second notice, marking a majo...
Corporate Law : India is moving to regulate Big Tech's anti-competitive practices like predatory pricing, self-preferencing, and data misuse. A ne...
Corporate Law : This analysis reveals how exclusive airport retail concession agreements create monopolies, leading to unchecked high prices for p...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India has proposed amendments to address administrative and procedural issues identified during impl...
Corporate Law : The proposed rules establish a comprehensive conduct framework for CCI employees, including integrity, conflict-of-interest contro...
Corporate Law : Parliament was informed that no antitrust or merger cases originated from Jammu and Kashmir during the year. The key takeaway is t...
Corporate Law : Enforcement activity rose with steady antitrust actions and quicker merger disposals, aided by reduced timelines and streamlined p...
Corporate Law : The competition watchdog has initiated further proceedings over widespread flight disruptions, signaling that the matter merits ex...
Corporate Law : CCI held no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 as dominance, collusion, and anti-competitive agreements were not established...
Corporate Law : CCI held evidence did not prove mandatory NOC, PIS approvals or systematic boycott after compliance measures and closed the procee...
Corporate Law : The Commission examined allegations relating to one-sided agreements, rental suppression, and delayed payments in commercial real ...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits an...
Corporate Law : The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied...
Corporate Law : The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discrimina...
Corporate Law : Summary of the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025. Details key changes, defin...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) notifies new regulations for recovering monetary penalties, detailing procedures for dem...
Corporate Law : CCI penalizes Meta ₹213.14 crore for abusing dominance through WhatsApp's 2021 Privacy Policy update. Cease-and-desist orders an...
Corporate Law : Clause (f) of Section 19 of the Competition Amendment Act 2023 comes into effect on 19th September 2024, as per the Ministry of Co...
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for room rent, medical tests, medicines, and consumables were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The CCI held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, consumables, room rent, and diagnostic services were not substantiated. The Commission found that patients could assess treatment costs beforehand and no separate aftermarket was established.
CCI directed investigation into allegations that certain liquor manufacturers and distributors entered into restrictive agreements to increase market share and influence retail supply patterns.
Allegations of an implied anti-competitive agreement between a regulator and a software provider were rejected. The Commission found no material indicating collusion or exclusion of competitors.
The Commission found no proof that tender conditions excluded competitors or favoured select players. It held that procurement terms alone do not violate competition law.
The case examined allegations of inflated and discriminatory pricing in supply of a critical railway component. The Commission held that price changes were attributable to currency fluctuations, logistics, and quantity, and found no abuse of dominance.
The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such conduct indicated pre-determined outcomes and violated competition law.
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for relying on a non-existent quasi-judicial income tax order. The key takeaway is that the matter must be reconsidered afresh following settled competition law principles.
The Competition Commission found prima facie evidence that breeder agreements restricted farmers from selling to competitors or using alternative breeds. It held that such clauses may constitute vertical restraints, warranting a detailed investigation. The case highlights concerns over limited market access and potential anti-competitive practices.
The Commission dismissed allegations of anti-competitive conduct as no evidence under Sections 3 or 4 was established. It held that regulatory violations fall outside competition law and must be addressed under other statutes.
